On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 01:13:06PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> On 03/17/2011 12:31 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 07:24:41PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> >>>>If we did that, serial8250_probe() would automatically do the right thing.
> >>>
> >>>Take a look at the way arch/powerpc/platforms/512x/pdm360ng.c uses a
> >>>notifier for amending a platform_device with additional data..
> >>
> >>I tend to view arch specific embedded code as rather like very dubious
> >>parties. What goes on in other peoples' house out of sight is none of my
> >>business.
> >>
> >>The 8250 however is core code so it should keep its clothers on and behave
> >>in a manner befitting its status.
> >>
> >>What part of the problem can't be solved by doing it properly using the
> >>device registration interfaces we have today ?
> >
> >Device registration isn't the problem. The problem is supplying
> >machine-specific callbacks from the board support code to the
> >drivers. When devices are sourced from a device tree, it is easy to
> >get data about the device out of the tree, but it is really hard to
> >get callback pointers. To make it all work without this fiddling
> >about, the octeon serial_{in,out} implementation would need to be
> >rolled into of_serial.c (which FWIW, I have absolutely no problem
> >with).
> >
>
> The only problem I have with that is that it ends up moving chip
> specific erratum workarounds into drivers/tty/serial instead of
> arch/mips/cavium-octeon.
>
> I will think about this more.
arch/mips/cavium-octeon/serial.c appears to be void of any
chip-specific errata at the moment. :-)
g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
